| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
16 Aug 2005 04:04:57 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
A dust jacket blurb by physics Nobel prize winner Eugene P. Wigner:
I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange's refusal
of the idea of materialism, and the convincing
arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book
will be a welcome response to materialism. Good
luck, for a good book!
biography of Wigner
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1963/wigner-bio.html
Note: materialism, NOT atheism or whatever bogeyman you have in mind.
Some people tried to make the observer that influences quantum
wave functions out to be the "mind" in some cases. I believe Wigner was
one of these. [checks - find out supposition is correct]
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Key/quinterp.htm
Gange extracts, i.e. what I underlined with pen and flexible plastic
ruler while reading is in here:
from Appendix 6:
Information can be broken down into units
commonly referred to as "bits." This should not be
confused with "computer bits" whose nomenclature
includes the radix. The number of informational bits
increases logarithmically as the magnitude of the
information grows, which means that large changes
of information are measured by comparatively small
numbers of bits.
Yet, should Gange also warn against confusing computer programs
making decisions with proteins making decisions?
Does Gange warn against thinking that there is only one
protein, and any deviation from it "dooms" it? Does Gange warn that
maybe we should be not looking at proteins in the first place?
the question is: How small can something be and
still make itself? Loosely speaking, the answer
seems to be, as small as a large protein molecule.
=
John von Neumann, asked the same question. He
discovered mathematically that a machine would
need to make about fifteen hundred correct
decisions, one after the other without error, in order
to reproduce itself.
=
thinking of each decision the machine must make as
a bit of information.
=
The least information needed to describe a machine
complex enough to guide its own reproduction is
fifteen hundred bits. Thus, as an inch is a unit of
length and a pound a unit of weight, a bit becomes a
unit of information.
=
the machine must make at least fifteen hundred
consecutive decisions _without error_ to faithfully
replicate itself. If one decision is wrong, it's doomed
=
The mathematical result showing that fifteen
hundred bits is the minimum information needed by
a machine to replicate itself is consistent with the
astonishing discovery that fifteen hundred bits is
roughly the information existing in a large protein
molecule.
I guess not, or else he would not have written his ridiculous
book.
the information stored in the world's largest library
is under fifty bits, and all of human knowledge is of
the order of sixty bits.
ROTFL!
=
If the physical structure of all nonliving matter
embraces about two hundred thirty-five bits, where
did the fifteen hundred bits of a large protein
molecule come from?
A mistake in logic?
The sensible answer is that it
came from a Supreme Intelligence.
Why Supreme, vs. not-so-Supreme? Why Intelligence, vs.
not-so-Intelligent? Gange seems to have no trouble generating
more than 256 bits of nonsense.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
16 Aug 2005 10:07:07 PM |
|
|
From the high volume of responses I can see that many are eager to
discuss the issues raised by Gange. Given the high level of interest
in discussion, I'll throw this out to provide the go-getters here the
opportunity to tackle a related topic:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Also, how long is the biggest functional amino acid sequence of which
you're aware?; of all possible amino acid sequences of that length,
what proportion of those sequences will be functional proteins of some
sort?
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
news:b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989@posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
17 Aug 2005 02:15:07 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
From the high volume of responses I can see that many are eager to
discuss the issues raised by Gange. Given the high level of interest
in discussion, I'll throw this out to provide the go-getters here the
opportunity to tackle a related topic:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Meaningless jibberish.
A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions
of possible variations that do not materially change the overall
qualities of a sequence. A protein that folds up into an active
catalyst may have numerous possible variations that do not greatly
change its ability to do its job in an organism.
And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In plants, 26 basic
forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is acceptable, it works.
So its possible for great variations in a given sequence to not change
anything important and for many different possibilities beyond that
one protein to be useful anyway. Example, puffer fish have a different
chemical pathways in their synapses that allow them to survive being
loaded with teratotoxin, which would block the chemical pathways
in synapses of other species, making puffers poisonous to other species.
There are numerous similar examples, cone shells for example that
have variant synapse chemistry pathways so that they are not themselves
destroyed by their own toxins. So its obvious that there
are many possible ways to have nerves and synapses, we are not
restricted. There are probably trillions upon trillions of DNA sequences
that can do the job, and any one given way is not 1 chance out of so many
trillions. The underlying DNA then that codes for such things has
a wide variability.
This is not new. Its been known a long time. So when creationists start
whanging out nonsense about the possible sequences and probablities
and the improbablity of life, its all deeply ignorant tommyrot.
Understanding evolution means understanding many, many technicahl
details.
Being a creationist merely means you have to be ignorant of most of them.
Which is why there are so many creationists.
There is far, far more slop allowable in the system then this
wrongheaded drivel. Its just wrong. Its like say 2 + 2 = 22.
Its ignorance. It has nothing to do with biochemistry.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
18 Aug 2005 10:21:21 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
From the high volume of responses I can see that many are eager to
discuss the issues raised by Gange. Given the high level of interest
in discussion, I'll throw this out to provide the go-getters here the
opportunity to tackle a related topic:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Meaningless jibberish.
A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions
of possible variations that do not materially change the overall
qualities of a sequence. A protein that folds up into an active
catalyst may have numerous possible variations that do not greatly
change its ability to do its job in an organism.
And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In plants, 26 basic
forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is acceptable, it works.
What is the amino acid sequence length of the shortest "gibberelic
acid" that "works"?
So its possible for great variations in a given sequence to not change
anything important and for many different possibilities beyond that
one protein to be useful anyway.
You spoke in generalities when saying "great variations" and "many
different possibilities." Your closest to a concrete number was when
saying "A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions of
possible variations that do not materially change the overall qualities
of a sequence."
I'll round "tens of millions" up to 1,000,000,000 = 10^9
Possible amino acid sequences of length 898 units: 20^898
I don't consider 10^9 functional possibilities out of an ensemble of
20^898 sequence possibilities to be "many different possibilities
beyond" the 10^9 "useful" possibilities.
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Example, puffer fish have a different
chemical pathways in their synapses that allow them to survive being
loaded with teratotoxin, which would block the chemical pathways
in synapses of other species, making puffers poisonous to other species.
There are numerous similar examples, cone shells for example that
have variant synapse chemistry pathways so that they are not themselves
destroyed by their own toxins. So its obvious that there
are many possible ways to have nerves and synapses, we are not
restricted.
I'll grant that there are "many possible ways to have nerves and
synapses"; however, there are far, far, _far_ more ways of being a
non-functional sequence than of being a functional sequence.
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_. On 9:
But, _however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain
that there are vastly more ways of being dead_, or rather not
alive.
There are probably trillions upon trillions of DNA sequences
that can do the job, and any one given way is not 1 chance out of so many
trillions. The underlying DNA then that codes for such things has
a wide variability.
This is not new. Its been known a long time.
Variability among organisms has also "been known a long time."
So when creationists start
whanging out nonsense about the possible sequences and probablities
and the improbablity of life, its all deeply ignorant tommyrot.
Understanding evolution means understanding many, many technicahl
details.
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Being a creationist merely means you have to be ignorant of most of them.
Which is why there are so many creationists.
Yes: IDiots are ignorant, atheists are informed and full of
understanding.
Say, Charlie, are you aware of how starting with simply non-living
matter, how that non-living matter could have become the first
biological lifeform?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
There is far, far more slop allowable in the system then this
wrongheaded drivel. Its just wrong. Its like say 2 + 2 = 22.
Its ignorance. It has nothing to do with biochemistry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
18 Aug 2005 11:35:00 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
<snip>
Yes: IDiots are ignorant, atheists are informed and full of
understanding.
IDiots are *willfully* ignorant, but that implies nothing about atheists.
The fact that you seem to think that atheism is somehow related
to anti-IDiotism just shows how willfully ignorant IDiots are.
Say, Charlie, are you aware of how starting with simply non-living
matter, how that non-living matter could have become the first
biological lifeform?
More proof that IDiots are willfully ignorant. You seem to think
that if a scientist can't explain something, then your Magic Designer
must have done it.
<snip>
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
19 Aug 2005 09:50:50 AM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
Bluntly, it takes more that a little to understand all of this thoroughly
and I most certainly don't. How proteins fold and why a given protein is
then an active molecule is one of the great problems of biology and
there is a lot of work going on here. Understanding this will make it
possible to design drugs and other things so its got a lot of effort behind
it. There are a lot of journals describing this work, and from time
to time interesting implications for the rest of biology from this makes
its way to journals like Nature.
Naturally the ID and Creationist contingent knows zilch about it all.
Its long been known the phony numbers game used by the creationists
is a phony. That these long, almost impossible odds the creationists wave
around, are phony.
It has been pointed out, long ago, yet the phonies are not doing science,
they are doing propaganda.
So that are not going to go read the relevant literature and do science and
correct themselves.
Because it is not science and they are not in the business of truth either.
And don't care.
The science is there, its not easy, its a weighty, large, subject.
Which is why we have so many phonies.
The nose pickers out there don't know this stuff and are easily lead by lies
and emotionally laden appeals to ignorance.
A phonies wonderland.
<snip>
Yes: IDiots are ignorant, atheists are informed and full of
understanding.
IDiots are *willfully* ignorant, but that implies nothing about atheists.
The fact that you seem to think that atheism is somehow related
to anti-IDiotism just shows how willfully ignorant IDiots are.
Say, Charlie, are you aware of how starting with simply non-living
matter, how that non-living matter could have become the first
biological lifeform?
More proof that IDiots are willfully ignorant. You seem to think
that if a scientist can't explain something, then your Magic Designer
must have done it.
<snip>
Deadrat
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
19 Aug 2005 01:09:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:50:50 -0500, WCB
<wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Given a earth surface of 197+ million square miles, a chemical
reaction can occur in less than 1/1000 of a cubic inch. Add a few
billion years. Every possible sequence would absolutely sure to
happen. Actually every possible sequence could occur in less than a
second. Every necessary combination of temperature, and chemicals
would be present in many places.
Now tell me how a god could arise from nothing, then create all the
necessary chemicals and conditions.
God/s are mans worst invention.
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
Bluntly, it takes more that a little to understand all of this thoroughly
and I most certainly don't. How proteins fold and why a given protein is
then an active molecule is one of the great problems of biology and
there is a lot of work going on here. Understanding this will make it
possible to design drugs and other things so its got a lot of effort behind
it. There are a lot of journals describing this work, and from time
to time interesting implications for the rest of biology from this makes
its way to journals like Nature.
Naturally the ID and Creationist contingent knows zilch about it all.
Its long been known the phony numbers game used by the creationists
is a phony. That these long, almost impossible odds the creationists wave
around, are phony.
It has been pointed out, long ago, yet the phonies are not doing science,
they are doing propaganda.
So that are not going to go read the relevant literature and do science and
correct themselves.
Because it is not science and they are not in the business of truth either.
And don't care.
The science is there, its not easy, its a weighty, large, subject.
Which is why we have so many phonies.
The nose pickers out there don't know this stuff and are easily lead by lies
and emotionally laden appeals to ignorance.
A phonies wonderland.
<snip>
Yes: IDiots are ignorant, atheists are informed and full of
understanding.
IDiots are *willfully* ignorant, but that implies nothing about atheists.
The fact that you seem to think that atheism is somehow related
to anti-IDiotism just shows how willfully ignorant IDiots are.
Say, Charlie, are you aware of how starting with simply non-living
matter, how that non-living matter could have become the first
biological lifeform?
More proof that IDiots are willfully ignorant. You seem to think
that if a scientist can't explain something, then your Magic Designer
must have done it.
<snip>
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
25 Aug 2005 09:33:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:35:00 GMT,
Deadrat <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
Because David isn't interested in knowledge, only in dishonest propaganda.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
25 Aug 2005 11:31:17 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:35:00 GMT,
Deadrat <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
Because David isn't interested in knowledge, only in dishonest propaganda.
There are libraries for him to go to if he wants the truth.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
26 Aug 2005 10:29:46 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:35:00 GMT,
Deadrat <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
Because David isn't interested in knowledge, only in dishonest propaganda.
Well, David certainly seems totally uninterested in any intelligent
dialog when one actually answers to the questions he poses. When I
informed him that gibberleic acid is not a protein, he decided that his
profound ignorance about biochemistry was really irrelevant to his
point. And twice I specifically and directly responded to his
"challenge" to evolutionary biologists about how the 'encoded in DNA'
genome of organism x came into existence (the second time the challenge
was addressed to me personally). His silence in response was deafening
both times. Seems he only poses the questions in order to falsely
imply that there are no possible answers.
Talks the talk, but cannot walk the walk. All mouth, no brain. Tony
Pagano lite. I hope that last was not too much of an insult, even for
t.o.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
26 Aug 2005 12:38:26 PM |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2005 08:29:46 -0700,
hersheyh@indiana.edu <hersheyh@indiana.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:35:00 GMT,
Deadrat <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1124421681.383607.87180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snip>
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Perhaps because all those possibilities are not equally likely?
Why don't you study a little chemistry?
Because David isn't interested in knowledge, only in dishonest propaganda.
Well, David certainly seems totally uninterested in any intelligent
dialog when one actually answers to the questions he poses. When I
informed him that gibberleic acid is not a protein, he decided that his
profound ignorance about biochemistry was really irrelevant to his
point. And twice I specifically and directly responded to his
"challenge" to evolutionary biologists about how the 'encoded in DNA'
genome of organism x came into existence (the second time the challenge
was addressed to me personally). His silence in response was deafening
both times. Seems he only poses the questions in order to falsely
imply that there are no possible answers.
Talks the talk, but cannot walk the walk. All mouth, no brain. Tony
Pagano lite. I hope that last was not too much of an insult, even for
t.o.
I think you've got David wrong. He's not here to have any sort of actual
discussion. I'm fairly certain that this is some sort of "research", and
that he's more of an uber-Nando, working carefully to build a complex
argument against science based on mined quotes and various logical fallacies
(but in particular appeals to consequences).
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
19 Aug 2005 10:59:02 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
From the high volume of responses I can see that many are eager to
discuss the issues raised by Gange. Given the high level of interest
in discussion, I'll throw this out to provide the go-getters here the
opportunity to tackle a related topic:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Meaningless jibberish.
A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions
of possible variations that do not materially change the overall
qualities of a sequence. A protein that folds up into an active
catalyst may have numerous possible variations that do not greatly
change its ability to do its job in an organism.
And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In plants, 26 basic
forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is acceptable, it works.
What is the amino acid sequence length of the shortest "gibberelic
acid" that "works"?
Gibberellic acid is NOT a protein or peptide, so it has no amino acid
sequence length. Don't you think that you should have checked this
before you confirmed your level of ignorance in front of a wider
audience, David?
http://www.vetamo.com/vetamo/ga4+7.htm
The gibberellins are synthesized from terpenoids.
So its possible for great variations in a given sequence to not change
anything important and for many different possibilities beyond that
one protein to be useful anyway.
You spoke in generalities when saying "great variations" and "many
different possibilities." Your closest to a concrete number was when
saying "A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions of
possible variations that do not materially change the overall qualities
of a sequence."
I'll round "tens of millions" up to 1,000,000,000 = 10^9
Possible amino acid sequences of length 898 units: 20^898
I don't consider 10^9 functional possibilities out of an ensemble of
20^898 sequence possibilities to be "many different possibilities
beyond" the 10^9 "useful" possibilities.
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Example, puffer fish have a different
chemical pathways in their synapses that allow them to survive being
loaded with teratotoxin, which would block the chemical pathways
in synapses of other species, making puffers poisonous to other species.
There are numerous similar examples, cone shells for example that
have variant synapse chemistry pathways so that they are not themselves
destroyed by their own toxins. So its obvious that there
are many possible ways to have nerves and synapses, we are not
restricted.
I'll grant that there are "many possible ways to have nerves and
synapses"; however, there are far, far, _far_ more ways of being a
non-functional sequence than of being a functional sequence.
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_. On 9:
But, _however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain
that there are vastly more ways of being dead_, or rather not
alive.
There are probably trillions upon trillions of DNA sequences
that can do the job, and any one given way is not 1 chance out of so many
trillions. The underlying DNA then that codes for such things has
a wide variability.
This is not new. Its been known a long time.
Variability among organisms has also "been known a long time."
So when creationists start
whanging out nonsense about the possible sequences and probablities
and the improbablity of life, its all deeply ignorant tommyrot.
Understanding evolution means understanding many, many technicahl
details.
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Being a creationist merely means you have to be ignorant of most of them.
Which is why there are so many creationists.
Yes: IDiots are ignorant, atheists are informed and full of
understanding.
Say, Charlie, are you aware of how starting with simply non-living
matter, how that non-living matter could have become the first
biological lifeform?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
There is far, far more slop allowable in the system then this
wrongheaded drivel. Its just wrong. Its like say 2 + 2 = 22.
Its ignorance. It has nothing to do with biochemistry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
19 Aug 2005 02:04:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
david ford wrote:
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
From the high volume of responses I can see that many are eager to
discuss the issues raised by Gange. Given the high level of interest
in discussion, I'll throw this out to provide the go-getters here the
opportunity to tackle a related topic:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Meaningless jibberish.
A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions
of possible variations that do not materially change the overall
qualities of a sequence. A protein that folds up into an active
catalyst may have numerous possible variations that do not greatly
change its ability to do its job in an organism.
And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In plants, 26 basic
forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is acceptable, it works.
What is the amino acid sequence length of the shortest "gibberelic
acid" that "works"?
Gibberellic acid is NOT a protein or peptide, so it has no amino acid
sequence length. Don't you think that you should have checked this
before you confirmed your level of ignorance in front of a wider
audience, David?
I was and remain extremely ignorant about "gibberelic acid."
What for "level of ignorance" do you think the author of this remark
has?:
"A protein that folds up into an active catalyst may have numerous
possible variations that do not greatly change its ability to do its
job in an organism. And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In
plants, 26 basic forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is
acceptable, it works."
http://www.vetamo.com/vetamo/ga4+7.htm
The gibberellins are synthesized from terpenoids.
Say, Howard, you're very knowledgeable.
How do you account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
So its possible for great variations in a given sequence to not change
anything important and for many different possibilities beyond that
one protein to be useful anyway.
You spoke in generalities when saying "great variations" and "many
different possibilities." Your closest to a concrete number was when
saying "A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions of
possible variations that do not materially change the overall qualities
of a sequence."
I'll round "tens of millions" up to 1,000,000,000 = 10^9
Possible amino acid sequences of length 898 units: 20^898
I don't consider 10^9 functional possibilities out of an ensemble of
20^898 sequence possibilities to be "many different possibilities
beyond" the 10^9 "useful" possibilities.
Call this question "meaningless jibberish" if you like, but I-- and I
suspect lurkers, as well-- am interested in seeing your answer to it:
Given a vast ocean of 20^898 sequence possibilities, how could one of
the 10^9 "useful" sequences be happened upon?
Example, puffer fish have a different
chemical pathways in their synapses that allow them to survive being
loaded with teratotoxin, which would block the chemical pathways
in synapses of other species, making puffers poisonous to other species.
There are numerous similar examples, cone shells for example that
have variant synapse chemistry pathways so that they are not themselves
destroyed by their own toxins. So its obvious that there
are many possible ways to have nerves and synapses, we are not
restricted.
I'll grant that there are "many possible ways to have nerves and
synapses"; however, there are far, far, _far_ more ways of being a
non-functional sequence than of being a functional sequence.
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_. On 9:
But, _however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain
that there are vastly more ways of being dead_, or rather not
alive.
There are probably trillions upon trillions of DNA sequences
that can do the job, and any one given way is not 1 chance out of so many
trillions. The underlying DNA then that codes for such things has
a wide variability.
This is not new. Its been known a long time.
Variability among organisms has also "been known a long time."
So when creationists start
whanging out nonsense about the possible sequences and probablities
and the improbablity of life, its all deeply ignorant tommyrot.
Understanding evolution means understanding many, many technicahl
details.
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Being a creationist merely means you have to be ignorant of most of them.
Which is why there are so many creationists.
Yes: IDiots are ignorant, atheists are informed and full of
understanding.
Say, Charlie, are you aware of how starting with simply non-living
matter, how that non-living matter could have become the first
biological lifeform?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
There is far, far more slop allowable in the system then this
wrongheaded drivel. Its just wrong. Its like say 2 + 2 = 22.
Its ignorance. It has nothing to do with biochemistry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism |
19 Aug 2005 04:12:05 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
hersheyh@indiana.edu wrote:
david ford wrote:
WCB wrote:
david ford wrote:
From the high volume of responses I can see that many are eager to
discuss the issues raised by Gange. Given the high level of interest
in discussion, I'll throw this out to provide the go-getters here the
opportunity to tackle a related topic:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Meaningless jibberish.
A given sequence of say 898 units may have tens of millions
of possible variations that do not materially change the overall
qualities of a sequence. A protein that folds up into an active
catalyst may have numerous possible variations that do not greatly
change its ability to do its job in an organism.
And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In plants, 26 basic
forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is acceptable, it works.
What is the amino acid sequence length of the shortest "gibberelic
acid" that "works"?
Gibberellic acid is NOT a protein or peptide, so it has no amino acid
sequence length. Don't you think that you should have checked this
before you confirmed your level of ignorance in front of a wider
audience, David?
I was and remain extremely ignorant about "gibberelic acid."
Yes.
What for "level of ignorance" do you think the author of this remark
has?:
"A protein that folds up into an active catalyst may have numerous
possible variations that do not greatly change its ability to do its
job in an organism. And that may indeed not be necessary anyway. In
plants, 26 basic forms of gibberelic acid are known, any one is
acceptable, it works."
IOW, a minor change in an enzyme that converts a substrate into one
product can instead convert that substrate into a different product.
That, and chimeric protein formation and gene duplication and
divergence, is how you get the 26 different basic forms of the plant
hormones called gibberllins (two ll's)
http://www.vetamo.com/vetamo/ga4+7.htm
The gibberellins are synthesized from terpenoids.
Say, Howard, you're very knowledgeable.
How do you account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
I already answered these questions. You must have missed it. But I
don't mind repeating.
The recorded-in-DNA/genetic information of humans are the result of a
series of modifications of the recorded-in-DNA/genetic information
present in the last common ancestor of humans and the other current (or
extinct) organism you are comparing humans to. How many steps are
involved in the series of modifications depends on how far back in the
branching pattern of common descent you choose to go.
BTW, the rate of change needed to produce this branching pattern is
less than what would occur by selectively neutral drift alone. You
don't even have to invoke selection to get the amount of change over
time observed (in fact, selection overall and in net retards change in
DNA sequence although this hides some very significant instances of
selective change). Slow neutral drift will do.
Although you did not mention the *species* (or even the superkingdom)
of bacteria you want this information for (humans are, of course, a
species), my answer to this would be basically the same: The
recorded-in-DNA/genetic information of modern bacterial species X are
the result of a series of modifications of the recorded-in-DNA/genetic
information present in the last common ancestor of this species and the
other current (or extinct) organisms you are comparing this bacterial
species to. How many steps are involved in the series of modifications
depends on how far back in the branching pattern of common descent you
choose to go.
WRT the first biological lifeform, you need to be more definitive as to
what you consider to be the *minimal* functional requirements for
something to be a "lifeform". The first entit(ies) I would consider to
be a lifeform probably did not have DNA, but used another (RNA or some
other) chemical that performed both a functional and a genetic role.
The initial sequence of this 'organism' was probably due to chance, but
was retained because some of the functions were relevant to imperfect
replication of these sequences and only organisms that retained these
sequences and improved upon their reproduction were retained.
In that respect the fact that ribozymes with functions relevant to
replication (polynucleotide kinase, RNA ligase) can be generated in
about a millimole of randomly generated 50mers is worth noting (and
they would be generated in the *same* millimole of random 50mers). The
abiogenic synthesis of the relevant polymers would be a question of
geochemistry, not life.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
